I've read every report in this unofficial study and have to say the majority are saying no. As far as taking responsibility for destroying our resources,in my job, which is water quality coordinator/salmon habitat restoration coordinator for one of the coast counties. The efforts are being done to restore the habitat and clean up the water. I talk to landowners and state officials all the time (every day) and the one thing that always comes up is the lack of common sense in the government. When the landowners took care of the resources,we historically had more fish. Since the Bolt decision and the activation of the environmental community, the fish numbers have dwindled. The government wants large buffers along the streams of an average of 180 feet from the normal high water mark, and wants 30% evergreen trees within that buffer. Now I challenge you to come to our rivers and show me a large number of old growth stumps along the waters edge within that 180 foot buffer. Our streams have historic deciduous trees in the buffer which are mostly alder and the average age of an alder before it starts to rot is 50 years and you will not usually find alders of different ages in a stand, so this means they will all start to die at about the same time. Thus the buffer will die off and then start over again. FACT. I just get tired of individuals from the big cities trying to tell the rural folks what they are doing wrong and how to fix it when they have destroyed everything in there area. Sorry for the long wind but sometimes you have to clear your mind.
Banock